MrSum1_55

My problem with Goliath is that I actually found it to be quite...tame. Outside of the powerful helix, forces of any kind are actually quite sparse. Titan is a much better ride, as the bonus helix gives a much better force distribution. The conundrum with both of these is that they are extremely intense in parts, but overall very inconsistent in terms of giving thrills. I used to dislike the designs of these coasters a lot, mostly due to inconsistent pacing and a lack of airtime. However, both designs have grown on me because both parks installed RMC's right next door, which take absolute care of the airtime department.

How about New Wicked Twisted Iron Roar Steel Coaster on Fire?

^Carowinds is surprisingly solid as far as dispatches go. When I was last there, the Nighthawk crew was loading trains faster than the Tatsu crew. When you spend more time stacking on a B&M than you do on a Vekoma flyer, something is very wrong.

I agree on Apoc. When I rode two weeks ago, it was bad. I am talking almost Gwazi bad. Parts of the track almost looks green, now. I do not think I have ever seen a (non RCCA) wood coaster deteriorate to an almost-too-rough-to-enjoy condition in that few years since opening.

As far as layouts go, I love CCI. I still would take almost any CCI layout over even the best GCI's any day. However, that is speaking in context of layouts only, as many CCI's have aged poorly. Ghostrider is nothing short of awful. But, the well maintained CCI's out there are still well ranked, most notably Boulder Dash.

^Best case scenario, it is both. And that would not surprise me too much, with Roar's strongly rumored RMC conversion and Ghostrider's long rumors of getting topper track. Three years ago, the best operating wood structured coaster in California was a coaster that was built in 1924. Next year, we might have RMC Roar, Ghostrider being restored to its former glory, along with Twisted Colossus and Gold Striker. In a few years, California may ahve transformed into a wood-structured coaster mecca. Also, assuming both of the rumored RMC projects happen, I guess you could say that the era of California's airtime shortage will be completely over. With Twisted Colossus, RMC Roar, Gold Striker, Manta, (topper track) Ghostrider, Giant Dipper, every major coaster park would have a coaster that at least provides good airtime. (Excluding Universal, which will probably never see an outdoor coaster)

^^^The problem with SFGAm is the overuse of clones. It is certainly a park that fares much better at quantity than quality. However, I do think that Dorney better fits that description. At Dorney they have: Talon (one of the least forceful inverts, aside from the awesome ending) Hydra (closed on my visit, but I have heard that it is pretty forceless) Steel Force (my least favorite hyper) Thunderhawk (would actually be pretty damn good if it was not trimmed to death) And of course, two inverted shuttle coasters. At least SFGAm has an RMC. Every RMC falls into the A range on coasters, just Goliath is maybe an "A-" ride instead of an "A++++" like all the other RMC's. I would MUCH rather have seen them convert one of their two existing wood coasters than build a lower-rate new one just for the marketing ploy of having the tallest wood coaster. Of one of their existing wood coasters loses ridership, would it be out of the question to see them purchase another RMC? (Keep in mind that B&M makes basically the same ride over and over again with different ways of riding it, and many parks still buy more than one of their rides)

A-Afterburn B-Batman C-California Screamin (But I will ride Cannibal soon) D-Dueling Dragons E-El Toro F-Fahrenheit G-Gold Striker H-Hollywood: RRR I-Intimidator 305 J-Jack Rabbit K-Kraken L-Lightning Racer M-Maverick N-New York, New York (Just kidding, New Texas Giant) O-Have not ridden Outlaw Run yet P-Phoenix Q-Gilroy Gardens is the third closest park to where I live but that still does not mean that I am going to go out there just to ride the most well-known coaster that starts with Q. R-Raptor S-Stormrunner T-Twisted Colossus U-Undertow V-Verbolten W-Wicked Twister X-X2 Y-Yolocoaster Z-I wish I could have gone on the Japan trip so I could have gotten in Zaturn.

When the kid in line in back of you spends an entire hour trying to convert you to creationism. Then again, this was on Texas Giant, so this fit the "Texas" theme very well. (Also, I actually did have some fun giving counter arguments)

^^B&M did not come out with the first wingrider. Baco at Portadventura opened before B&M's first. B&M has been doing good business, but from an enthusiast perspective, they really have done minimal innovation in the past five years. In that time, we have seen entire companies like Zierer, RMC, and Mack go from being seen as makers of small coasters or subcontractors to becoming some true dominant forces in the industry. Intamin has given us some new stuff as well, though not all of their new designs have been successful. (305, Skyrush). B&M's newest innovations have been a launched wingrider (seven years after Intamin made the first one) and new restraints (of which this type already existed). Also, you could say that their gigas bave been somewhat innovative, but these these are technologically simply taller hypers. In the 90's B&M truly innovated the coaster world, but now they just seem to make the same ride over and over again. While Banshee may have been a good throwback to the old days, but I do not expect any revolutions from this company as the one they created over 20 years ago.

I probably should clarify, when I say that my list goes like: 1. Texas Giant 2. Twisted Colossus I am not actually talking about my top RMC's. I am actually giving the list of my top two steel coasters I have ever ridden. I do agree that any discussion over which is better is truly splitting hairs. I think that it is a lot of fun to analyse and compare which features we think are better than others. But if you are trying to decide between a place trip to SFOT or to SFMM, do not let some moron on the internet with an avatar of an Arrow looper be that deciding factor. One comment that I do have to make is that I like the Gerstlauer trains a lot better than the RMC trains. Colossus' extreme laterals had the tendency to slam me into the side of the train, especially when sitting on the right side. You would have the perfect RMC if the green life of Colossus were extended, and the rest of the ride became an NTAG clone. OR The greatest roller coaster in the world would be if you took El Toro, then right after the Rolling Thunder hill pasted on all of Texas Giant after the MCBR. (That would be so great because it always felt to me that El Toro loses its amazing pace a bit too soon).

My rankings are simple: 1. Texas Giant 2. Twisted Colossus It seems like Texas Giant had the perfect foundation for a conversion. The original was very tall with an interesting layout, which in turn to what may be the best RMC conversion. I also think that Texas Giant is helped by the lack of inversions, so there are no elements like this to interrupt the pace of the airtime.

I agree that the TC crew could learn a thing or two from the Superman crew up north. Even though these two coasters have the same problem with having trains that were not designed for additional seat belts, the Superman crew can cope far better with the situation. One advantage is that they do not allow loose articles even in the station, and they have an exit that allows people to access the bunnies nearby and return to that point in the line. There is a fairly large area of the TC station being used for nothing but soda machines, so why not swap those out for some fingerprint-scan bunnies like at Universal? Also, their bag drop arrangement is not very good as it is. If the idea of the bunnies does not work, why not place bag drops right near the edge of each car? This would give people fewer distance to walk to the bag drop and reduce overcrowding near the bins. I would be thinking something like Skyrush has, except on the opposite side of the train. (I cannot believe that I just used Skyrush as a positive example of how to design a station). A more minor advantage to Superman is the "walk through" policy, in which they require that people walk through the gates to the edge of the train after the train stops, even if there are still people in it. On TC, ops were waiting several seconds before opening the gates, even waiting until after the lap bars released. But what was most annoying of all these factors was the fact that the ops did not seem to care much about dueling, anyway. I noticed several examples of when the ops actually finished checking the restraints in time, but would take their sweet time walking back to the op gates and doing the visual scan, so the train would be just a few seconds short of dueling. Why would you get 90% of the way toward a goal, only to conclude that you do not care right at the very end? I really should be able to duel more than 5 times over a span of 27 rides. But, what is also somewhat sad is that the TC crew is still one of the most efficient in the park.

Rode TC a total of 27 times over the past Saturday and Sunday. The things that I have to say about it include: -It is the best ride in the park by far. My top seven are now: 1. El Toro 2. Texas Giant 3. Phoenix 4. Twisted Colossus 5. Maverick 6. Intimidator 305 7. Phantom's Revenge -Texas Giant is the one other RMC I have ridden, so it is quite impressive that both of these are in my top five. As it stands, I think that Texas Giant is the better of the two, but that does not make Colossus any less impressive. I might consider ranking Colossus up with Texas Giant if the dueling was consistent, but it is unfortunately quite rare. -I did not like the RMC trains as much as I did the Gerstlauer trains on Texas Giant. Even with the shields, the Texas Giant trains seemed to have more arm space. Due to this, I liked sitting on the left side far more than the right side, because most of the laterals are to the right and can slam the side of your body into them. -Additionally, the seatbelts are quite annoying. The buckles rest under the large, thigh-crushing RMC lap bars, so it cause some bruising on my thighs from multiple rerides. However, what I did like about TC is that the ops do not staple you in as much as on other coasters of similar intensity, like El Toro or Texas Giant. This was a huge plus, especially on one ride in which I was lucky enough to have the op leave a fairly reasonable amount of space between me and the lap bar, resulting some of the most insane airtime I had ever experienced. (I think that this un-stapled ride beat out a normal ride on NTAG and El Toro for me, but a similar ride on either of these two would probably beat out TC) -On Saturday, it had the best capacity of any coaster at SFMM, despite rarely dueling. However, on Sunday it ran two trains instead of three, so wait times actually increased despite fewer crowds. -Overall, it is a solid ride that is a fantastic addition to the park and should easily be in anyone's top ten, but I also wish that it could have been built in a different park that could operate it better (i.e. more dueling).

Anyone who doubts RMC should ride ANY one, and you will instantly be converted. I have ridden Texas Giant, and it is hands down better than any other wood coaster I have ridden, except maybe El Toro. But even with this comparison, I have a hard time deciding which one is better. El Toro has a few hills that beat out Texas Giant's best hills, but IMO Texas Giant is a better paced ride with a much better ending. The fact that I am even able to make this comparison at all already says quite a lot about the quality of an RMC. Even the worst RMC (Goliath) has been getting glowing reviews. I would trade in the weakest RMC for Roar almost any day, let alone for something on the level of quality of Texas Giant.

I saw this exact model ferris wheel at the last carnival I was at. This same carnival also had a super loop as well, so it would not surprise me if SF is showing a willingness to install off-the-shelf rides made for travelling carnivals. (Well technically compacts Schwarzkopfs and the Euro-Star are made for travel, but these are a league of their own).

From what people have posted on here, these are my thoughts: -I am conflicted on how a super loop would fit the park. On one hand, it would add a much-needed flat ride, but on the other hand it will be marketed as a coaster, therefore adding another inverting "coaster" to the park. I do not care too much either way, as I care very little about this type of flat ride (I rode one at a carnival after leaving an ice cream buffet, so I am making the personal choice to steer clear of rides like this from now on). For SFMM to get a justice league dark ride would basically be one of the best possible additions that could happen to this park. And the other one seems so vague I have no clue what they could be hinting at with that one. Dueling Premier Skyloops maybe?

If you do not think that a Flashpass is worth it, then do not pay for it. I know which parks that I visit often enough to the point of which I do never get it, and I know which parks that I rarely visit so that I will work for as many hours as I can so I can pay for it. When I am at a park like SFDK, I never buy it, even on the most crowded of days. But when I am at SFOT, a park that I have been to one time and will most likely not revisit within the next five years, the Platinum pass is worth every penny to me. And no, a regular Flashpass does not work the same way as Disney Fastpass. Disney Fastpass is based purely on a supply/demand system, so it is not uncommon to have a return time of no sooner than five hours later for a ride with a one hour wait. It can be an effective system, but it does require some pre-planning of your day. For this reason, I often do not even like to use that many Fastpasses at Disneyland, even when it is fairly crowded. (Usually, I will only use Fastpass once or twice in the span of a 16 hour operating day).

Actually, a prefab and similar sized GCI roughly the same. Balder only costed around $10 million, and it only costed $12 million to build El Toro. However, an RMC would be much cheaper. A 100 foot GCI costs around 10 million, while a 150 ft RMC would cost the same price up front, and cost far less to maintain. RMC is leading the game all around.

SFMM does not need any more new coasters, but I still think that they will keep building them anyway. Their major coaster lineup is very well-rounded as is, but I cannot say the same about anything else to do with this park. But, I do not have much reason to believe yet that their previous focus would change.

While I do not think that they would sink low enough to market a Super Loop as their 20th coaster, I also do not think that their 20th would be anything large like a giga. I am confident that TC is the best ride that they will build for a long time, so for me any future speculation is more out of curiosity than excitement. I could see them getting something like an El Loco with wide trains that could be marketed as the US's steepest coaster, or something like that.

I do not believe that GCI is in considerable danger of going out of business, but it does seem very possible that their "Golden Age" could be over. I have never ridden a non-rough GCI that I did not "like," but I have rarely been blown away by them either, with the possible exceptions of Thinderhead and Gold Striker. GCI's were once being built all over the US, but now that RMC's are being built as fast as they can be made, the face of wood coasters may have changed

As stated earlier in this thread, GCI's have a tenancy to be very hit-or-miss. Some, like Thunderhead and Lightning Racer, have held up very well for their age. But, Roar (both East and West), Wildcat, Gwazi, and Apocalypse have all aged quite poorly. I am a bit surprised that the global wood coaster market has not been crushed by Intamin or RMC yet. Any design from either of these companies is a near guarantee for good aging, and it actually costs the same or less to buy a coaster from one of these companies. Only time will tell to see if RMC truly does have the market cornered on new wood coaster installations; it could already be said that GCI has lost their status as the #1 wood coaster company judging by number of installations each year.

I completely disagree with those saying that this ride is a gimmick. If this one is a gimmick, then every other RMC must also be. If you have a problem with the fact that this is over a parking lot, you had since 1978 to complain about that. However, I do not believe that this is a turning point, nor do I care. I think that the next addition will be as much a gimmick as the last few attritions before this one. This addition is more than likely the exception to a string of mediocre additions. But, TC is one very great exception. So much so, that doubt I will have much concern over what they build on the future. This is the ride I am going to the park for, and it will probably be that way for a long time.

This ride should do eight cycles, to represent the fate of the eighth circle of Hell the marketing department of this ride is guilty of for the sin of fraud of marketing this as a roller coaster. Then again, I am probably going to Hell as well, so it will be nice to hang out with the blasphemous marketing team while I am there. But seriously, I hope that the other SF parks adopt the same level of theming as this one.